Objecting to Consideration / Conflict of Interest

[NateB]

I am running in an election for our Board, and therefore have a conflict of interest for everything elections-related.

However, some Directors have expressed that next meeting, when the election results would be ratified, they may attempt to suspend quorum to allow candidates who did not meet it to be ratified. However, our bylaws don't have a provision that specifically allows this, so my understanding of Robert's Rules is that this is not permitted. I will have to leave for the item's discussion due to my conflict, but am I allowed to object to the consideration of the question before entering debate to make the point that our bylaws do not allow this? Or would another Director need to raise that concern if the Chair does not flag it?

Thanks!

[Gary Novosielski]

The fact that you are running for election does not constitute a conflict of interest at all, much less for everything election-related.  

Suspension of quorum is not a thing.  No vote, no matter how large can suspend a quorum if one is not present.

You do not have to leave the room for that discussion because there's no discussion.  It simply can't be done.  And you would not have to leave the room anyway because it's a discussion of the quorum rule, not on your candidacy.  And you still would not have to leave the room because you're not subject to any discipline.

Somebody is feeding you a line of goulash regarding conflicts of interest, if the rules in RONR apply.   Do you have some weird bylaws that support any of this odd reasoning?

If not, then Objection to the Consideration of the Question is not what you would use in this case.  It would be a straight up Point of Order that the quorum set in the bylaws can not be suspended.  Period.

Edited March 12, 2024 at 11:14 PM by Gary Novosielski

[NateB]

On 3/12/2024 at 7:11 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Somebody is feeding you a line of goulash regarding conflicts of interest, if the rules in RONR apply.   Do you have some weird bylaws that support any of this odd reasoning?

Our conflict of interest policy (especially with elections) is specially defined in our bylaws, and I would say it's much broader than the rules in RONR, but the thing I am positive of is that suspension of quorum is not, so it should not be an option to even do that. We have a bylaw that does allow that for a different type of election, so I think the person was confused and thought it applied to all elections, but it does not.

I mostly wanted to clarify the specifics of what technically happens when someone motions to do something that is simply not possible according to the bylaws. Your answer makes perfect sense, thank you  If it is attempted, I will raise a Point of Order.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/12/2024 at 7:05 PM, NateB said:

some Directors have expressed that next meeting, when the election results would be ratified, they may attempt to suspend quorum to allow candidates who did not meet it to be ratified.

This sentence does not make sense to me. There's no such thing as a candidate who did not meet quorum.

[NateB]

On 3/12/2024 at 7:29 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

This sentence does not make sense to me. There's no such thing as a candidate who did not meet quorum.

Apologies for my poor wording, hopefully I can clear up the confusion. Our elections are across several different constituencies, and in order for a Director of a particular constituency to be elected, they must meet a 10% quorum for that constituency ("Quorum shall be 10% of the general membership of the applicable constituency. A simple majority vote is required for a valid outcome.")

What I was referring to was, for example, a Director of "ABC" constituency, where only 9% of "ABC" members voted, and therefore the required quorum was not met, and the Director would not be elected. My concern is that members would bring forward a motion (which would be out of order) to ratify the Directors anyways.

This is a provision we allow only after our "Online Elections Contingency Plan" has been enacted, and in this case, it has not:
"In the event that quorum is not reached by the end of the voting period of the Online Elections Contingency Plan, the Board of Directors shall have the authority to hold a vote to ratify the elections results without having reached quorum. This requires a two-thirds majority vote and can be applied only to Executive and Board of Directors positions."

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/12/2024 at 7:46 PM, NateB said:

What I was referring to was, for example, a Director of "ABC" constituency, where only 9% of "ABC" members voted, and therefore the required quorum was not met, and the Director would not be elected. My concern is that members would bring forward a motion (which would be out of order) to ratify the Directors anyways.

A quorum is the number of members who must be present at a meeting in order to conduct business. It has nothing to do with the number of members who voted.

You seem to be dealing with some sort of online election system with its own rules, so I have no idea what a quorum means in this context. 

[Atul Kapur]

It sounds like "quorum" means the number of members who cast a vote in the online election.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/12/2024 at 9:42 PM, Atul Kapur said:

It sounds like "quorum" means the number of members who cast a vote in the online election.

Well it seems that in this organization everything from voting to quorum to ratification to conflict of interest is defined or handled differently than in RONR, so I'm not sure we can be of much help here. 

[NateB]

On 3/12/2024 at 10:02 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well it seems that in this organization everything from voting to quorum to ratification to conflict of interest is defined or handled differently than in RONR, so I'm not sure we can be of much help here. 

You have already been of help  Mr. Novosielski's first answer effectively led me to the answer of my question - I only replied to clarify your point since I had created some confusion.

Apologies for the hassle, I appreciate everyone's help.